Delhi District Court
Cbi vs 1 M/S R K Udyog (Pvt. Firm) Represented on 9 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. MAHEWARI
SPECIAL JUDGE:DELHI
Complaint Case No.17/10
CBI Vs 1 M/s R K Udyog (Pvt. Firm) represented
by K G Sharma, Proprietor, 25 SFS,
DSIDC Industrial Complex, Nangloi,
Delhi
2 K G Sharma s/o R K Sharma r/o 220
Friends Enclave,Nangloi, Delhi.
3 CJS Bindra s/o Late A S Bindra (expired
on 2.11.05 and proceedings against him
stands abated vide order dt.22.2.2006)
4 Raman Chadha s/o Sh. S P Chadha r/o 90
A,DDA Flat, (LIG), Rajouri Garden, New
Delhi27.
R. C No. 14 (S)/93/ CBI/SCB/N/Delhi
Under Section 120B, 420, 467, 471, 477 IPC and Section
5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1947
Date of Institution of
case: 17.11.94
Arguments concluded
on: 25.4.2012
Date of Order: 30.4.2012
CC No. 17/10 1/70
Judgment
According to prosecution this case was registered on
the basis of source information that K G Sharma floated a firm M/S
R K Udyog,220, Friends Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi and he connived
with R K Sharma and submitted application dated 23.9.1986 to New
Bank of India, Rani Bagh Branch, New Delhi for credit facilities viz
cash credit, term loan and bill discounting etc with a proposal for
manufacturing super Enamelled Copper Wire without having any
shed or premises for manufacturing . In pursuance of the conspiracy,
JS Bindra and S R Chugh, Manager and Accountant respectively of
the aforesaid bank after conniving with K G Sharma prepared a false
scrutiny report and Bindra forwarded the proposal for sanction to
Regional office. In pursuance of the conspiracy, K L Chandra
sanctioned facilities of Term loan of Rs.3.75 lacs , Cash credit of Rs.
5.50 lacs and bill discounting of Rs.3.50 lacs . These facilities were
later on enhanced by K L Chandra on 28.12.1988 without proper
verification of financial position of the firm as term loan of Rs.5.0
lacs, Cash credit of Rs.10.0 lacs bill discounting of Rs.5.0 lacs,
Inland letter of Credit Rs.5.0 lacs and 3rd Party cheques of Rs.2.0
lacs.
2 Accused K G Sharma presented nine forged bills
CC No. 17/10 2/70
amounting to Rs.4,13,957/ and the same were discounted by
Bindra . These bills were dishonored and not paid by the parties .The
machinery for which finance was obtained was already under the
charge of another bank and R K Sharma had already obtained loan
for this machinery for his firm M/S R K Industries from other bank.
As a result of these fraudulent transactions, the bank has been
cheated to the tune of Rs.31,67,921/ by the accused persons.
3 During investigation it was revealed that accused No.3
CJS Bindra worked as Branch Manager, New Bank of India ( Now
Punjab National Bank ), Rani Bagh Branch, New Delhi during the
year 1985 to 1989 and in that capacity he was empowered to accept
documents and recommend for sanction and enhancement of loans
on behalf of the bank. Accused No.3 CJS Bindra (since deceased )
connived with M/S R K Udyog, K G Sharma and Raman Chadha and
in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of
common object examined the loan proposal of M/S R K Udyog, 25
SFS, DSIDC Complex, Nangloi, Delhi and favorably recommended
the same to Regional Office on 3.10.1986 for sanction the term Loan
for built up shed of Rs.3.0 lacs , Plant and Machinery of Rs.3.90
lacs, Cash Credit of Rs.5.50 lacs, Bill Discounting facility of Rs.4.0
lacs ( advance against hundies of reputed concern)
4 Sh R.M. Singhavi, Dy General Manager ( since expired)
CC No. 17/10 3/70
sanctioned the Term Loan ( Hyp of Machinery) of Rs.3.75 lacs, cash
credit ( Hyp) of Rs. 5.50 lacs and bill discounting to Rs.3.50 lacs to
M/S R K Udyog on 23.12.1986.
5 Accused No.3 CJS Bindra ( since deceased ) overlooked
the terms and conditions laid down by Regional Office before
disbursement of the loan to M/S R.K. Udyog and released the term
loan of Rs.3.75 lacs without obtaining a deposit of R.15 lacs as
recommended by Regional office.
6 Accused CJS Bindra failed to ensure the supply of
machinery by M/S Sena Machines and Engineers (P) Ltd toM/S R K
Udyog and submitted false inspection report citing an old machinery
under the charge of Andhra Bank, Asaf Ali Road Branch , New
Delhi as the machinery purchased by M/S R.K. Udyog against his
term loan. The loan amount was returned by Sh Umesh
Gupta,Director of M/S Sona Machines and Engineers ( P) Ltd to Sh
K G Sharma in installments on different occasions as he had not
supplied any machine to M/S R K Udyog.
7 Sh CJS Bindra favourably recommended for
enhancement of loan facilities on 22.5.1988 in spite of the fact that
the account of M/S R K Udyog had already gone bad and the same
were sanctioned by Regional Office on 4.7.1988 as follows:
a Cash Credit : Rs.10.0 lacs
CC No. 17/10 4/70
b Bills Discounting : Rs.5.0 lacs
c Cheque Purchse : Rs.1.0 lacs
d Inland Letter of Credit: Rs.3.0 lacs
Rs.19.0 Lacs
8 Sh CJS Bindra discounted the following Hundies of
bogus/nonexisting firms although the Regional Office had
recommended for discounting of Hundies of reputed concern like
Usha, Polar, Khaitan and Cool Home.
Sl Bill No.& Date Due Amount Banker Drawn on M/S
N0. Date Rs.
1 349/3.12.88 18.1.89 46,002.67 NBI,Nangloi Electronic Wound
Components C22,
DSID, Nangloi, Delhi
Prop. S Aggarwal & RG
Sharma
2 351/2.12.88 17.1.89 48,58413 do do
3 353/8.1.89 23.2.89 49,13333 do do
4 354/19.1.89 24.2.89 48,61024 do do
5 347/2.12.88 17.1.89 50,36222 SBI/Maya Puri Maxwell Electrical &
Electronics,
E56,Mayapuri PhaseII,
N. Delhi. Prop H. Singh
6 327/25.9.88 10.11.88 47,19326 do do
7 325/23.9.88 8.11.88 27,71812 Oriental Bank of Raja Sons, 1853,
Commerce, Bhagirath Place, Delhi6
Vishal Enclave, Prop Raman Chadha.
New Delhi.
8 330/27.9.88 12.11.88 19,13340 do do
CC No. 17/10 5/70
9 315/7.8.88 22.9.88 49,24344 NBI, LBlock , S.K. Trading Co;
Con. Place,New 9642/12,Sadar Thana
Delhi Road, Pahar Ganj, N
Delhi. Prop R Bhardwaj.
10 316/8.8.88 23.9.88 48,21606 do do
11 331/28.9.88 13.11.88 26,61018 do do
9 All the hundis were returned unrealized to the bank.
The accused No.3 CJS Bindra did not obtain credit report of the
drawees and discounted all the 11 hundis for Rs.4,60,80905 without
bothering to enquire about genuineness of the firm.
10 Accused No.3 CJS Bindra in pursuance of aforesaid
conspiracy released various loans to the tune of Rs.18,35,809/ by
accepting forged/bogus documents and thereby abused his official
position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage for
himself and for M/S R K Udyog, KG Sharma and Raman Chadha
and caused corresponding pecuniary loss to the bank. The
handwriting expert from GEQD/ Shimla has given positive opinion
about handwriting and signature of the accused on the questioned
documents.
11 Copies required U/s 207 Cr PC supplied to
all the accused. My Ld. Predecessor Sh. Vinod Goel , the then
Special judge vide his order dated 12th of September, 2007 directed
to frame charges against accused K.G Sharma and Raman Chadha .
CC No. 17/10 6/70
Accordingly charges were framed against both the accused on
15.9.2007. A Charge for the offence punishable U/S 120B r/w
Section 420, 467, 468, & 471of IPC and U/S 5 (2) r/w Section 5 (1)
(d) of P C Act 1947 has been framed against both the accused and
charges for the substantive offence punishable U/S 420, 467, 468,
471 has been framed against accused K G Sharma.
12 In order to prove its case Prosecution has
examined following witnesses. :
PW1 Sh. M L Wadhwa, Assistant General Manager, New
Bank of India , he has proved Hundies Ex PW1/1 to PW1/5
PW2 Sh. Ashok Dargan has proved account opening form
Ex. PW2/1. He has also proved Hundies Ex PW1/1 to Ex PW1/3 and
certified copy of bill collection register page 46 of OBC, Vishal
Enclave Ex PW2/2.
PW3 Sh. R.K. Vij, retired Senior Manager PNB, has
proved sanction Note Ex PW3/A.
PW4 Sh. Harsh Kumar, he has deposed orally and has
not proved any document.
PW5 Sh. B K Bakshi has proved seizure memo Ex
PW5/A , specimen signatures sheet of accused K G Sharma Ex
PW5/B1 to Ex PW5/B21and specimen signatures sheet of accused
Raman Chadha Ex PW5/C1 to Ex PW5/C21 .
CC No. 17/10 7/70
PW6 Sh. Jyoti Bhushan has proved seizure memo
PW6/A vide which documents Ex PW6/A1 to A4 were seized.
PW7 B K Singla, retired Chief Manager, Punjab National
Bank has proved seizure memo PW7/A vide which documents
Ex PW7/A1 to A4 were seized.
PW8 Sh. C.S. Khurana, Manager, PNB has proved
seizure memo Ex. PW8/A vide which statement of account Ex
PW8/A1 was seized.
PW9 Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Assistant General Manager
has proved seizure memo Ex PW9/A and PW9/B in respect of
seizure of documents Ex.PW9/A1, Ex PW9/B1 and B2.
PW10 Sh. Umesh Kumar has also proved claim files Ex.
PW10/A to PW10/A17.
PW11 Sh.Uma Shankar has stated that he was working
as seceratry Ms.Hill CoOperative Group Housing Society and the
account of the society was with New Bank of India, Rani Bagh
Branch, Delhi. The loans were taken in the name of Society from
Ms.Delhi CoOperative Group Housing Society and some
instalments were paid to the society. He did not make any deposit of
amount with New Bank Of India, Rani Bagh Branch, Delhi and he
does not know any person by the name of Sh.K.G.Sharma.
PW12 Sh.Dhanjay Aggarwal, has stated that he and his
CC No. 17/10 8/70
father were the partners in the firm Ms.Electronic Wound
Components Company from 1974 to 2004. Only he and his father
Sh.S.P.Aggarwal were authorized to accept the Hundies. On seeing
ExPw 1/B he stated that this does not bear the signatures of his
father Sh.S.P.Aggarwal at point Q19. On seeing photocopy of the
hundi( D18) he stated that it does not bear the signatures of his
father at point Q20. On seeing photostate copy of the hundi dated
9.01.1989 and photostate copy of the hundi dated 08.01.1989 he
stated that these hundies do not bear the signatures of any of the
partners of Electric Wounds Component Company. He further stated
that R.G.Sharma has never been a partner in thier Firm.
PW13 Sh.M.L.Sharma has stated that he has examined
the questioned documents in this case and compared with the
specimen writings and as per his opinion the writings Q10 to Q20
are of Sh.K.G.Sharma and the writngs Q1, Q1A, Q1B, Q2 to Q7
are of Raman Chaddha.
PW 14 Shiv Kumar has stated that he was running his
business under the name and style of Jagdamba Auto Industires C22
DSIDC, Industrial Complex, Nangloi, Delhi and he knew
K.G.Sharma who was neighbouror to his factory. No firm in the
name and style of Ms. Elctronic Wounds Component and Company
CC No. 17/10 9/70
ever existed at C22, DSIDC, Nangloi, Delhi. On seeing D22 and
D24 photocopies of challan/invoice of M/s R.K.Udhyog dated
09.01.1989 and 08.01.1989 raised in favor of Ms.Electronic Wounds
Componets Company C22, DSIDC, Industrial Complex, Nangloi,
Delhi he stated that he does not know Ms.Electronic Wounds
Component Company the company never functioned from the shed
belonging to the witness and the bills D22 and D24 were forged
and fictitious one.
PW15 Sh.P.K.Gupta has proved the sanction order ExPw
15/A for according sanction for the prosecution of late
Sh.C.J.S.Bindra.
PW16 Sh.K.L.Chandna stated that he was working as
Regional Manager Regional Office, New bank of India, Delhi when
Sh.C.J.S.Bindra was the Branch Manager, New Bank Of India, Rani
Bagh Branch and S.R.Chugh was the loan Officer and the credit
facilities were sanctioned in favor of R.K.Udhyog by the Regional
Office which were subsequently enhanced. He had conveyed the
enhanced sanction order Ex PW16/A to the branch .
PW17 Sh.Govind Singh has stated that he was working
in the office of Dayal Singh Chartered Accountant which was
CC No. 17/10 10/70
situated at 1995 Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh and thereafter
shifted to 9642/12 Sadar Thana Road, Paharganj, New Delhi55. The
factory of K.G.Sharma and R.K.Udhyog were also functioning at the
same address, a board of S.K.Trading Company was also there in the
premises of R.K.Industries/R.K.Udhyog he does not know who was
looking after the working of S.K.Trading Company. After 34 years
the industy of K.G.Sharma was shifted from that place to Nangloi the
boards of S.K.Trading Company were also removed from that place
when office of K.G.Sharma was shifted. He has stated that he did not
see any person working for S.K.Trading Company.
PW18 Sh.Akhil Kaushik has stated that he investigated
the case and filed the chargesheet. He has proved the seizure memos
vide which the documents were collected by him. He has further
stated that it was a condition in the sanction note that hundies only of
reputed firm i.e. Polar, Usha, Khaitan and Cool Home will be
accepted for a period of 45 days and 11 hundies which pertained to
Ms. Electronic Would Components, Maxwell Electricals and
Electronics, M/s Raja Sons and M/s S. K. Trading Company were
discounetd by Sh. C.J. S Bindra. These hundies were not realized
because the firms refused to make the payments or having signed on
the hundies. These hundies were returned by the bank to the
discounting bank with the remark of insufficient funds. The last
CC No. 17/10 11/70
outstanding amount as per ledger sheet Ex.PW 18/K was Rs.
46,14,896.85/ as on 16051991.
PW19 Sh.Harpal Singh has stated that Ms.Maxwell
Electrical and Electronics was his firm which he started in the year
198687 the firm was got registered by him. 0n seeing 2 hundies
Ex.PW 1/9 and ExPw 1/10 he stated that Q17 and Q18 were his
signatures. He has stated that he had made the payments of hundies
ExPw 1/9 and ExPw 1/10.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE.
13 Statement of both the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC.
Accused K G Sharma has stated that he is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in this case. Accused Raman Chaddha has stated
that he is innocent. He was running part time business under the
name and style of M/s Raja Sons and he had not committed any
offence.
14 In support of their defence, they have examined five
witness:
15 DW1 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar has proved record in respect
of Industrial Shed No.25 SFS CategoryII at rohtak Road Industrial
Complex of DSIDC Ex DW1/A.
CC No. 17/10 12/70
16 DW2 Sh. Mukesh Aggarwal has proved noting Ex
DW2/A.
17 DW3 Sh. Sushil Dabas has proved copy of letter dt.
11.3.87 and 10.3.94 Ex DW3/A and Ex DS3/B and receipt of house
tax Ex DW3/C.
18 DW4 Sh. Pradeep Kumar Tiwari has deposed orally. He
has not proved any document.
19 DW5 Udaiveer Singh has proved record of meter No.
8614879 Ex DW5/A, letter dt. 1.10.1988 Ex DW5/B, Form B Ex
DW5/C leter dt. 20.2.89 ex DW5/D, photocopy of bill Ex DW5/E
bill dt. 16.2.88 Ex DW5/F, receipt dt. 28.7.88 Ex DW5/G, bill dt.
9.9.88 Ex DW5/H, entries dt. 18.5.98 and 31.3.98 Ex DW5/J ad Ex
DW5/K.
PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS
20 Ld. SPP, Sh. I D Vaid on behalf of CBI argued that
accused K G Sharma and Raman Chadha in connivance and
conspiracy of their co accused CJS Bindra, the then Branch
Manager, New Bank of India, got disbursed the loan amount on the
basis of forged and fictitious Hundis of S K Trading Co., Maxwell
Electronics & electricals and M/s Electronics Wound Components
Co. and M/s Raja Sons. It is argued that CJS Bindra deliberately and
CC No. 17/10 13/70
intentionally had accepted the Hundis of these non existing firms
floating the direction in the sanction note that Hundis of reputed
firms like Polar, Khaitan, Usha, Cool Home etc.were to be accepted.
He has also argued that CJS Bindra in connivance and conspiracy
with K G Sharma had accepted the forged personal guarantee
purported to be signed by Harish Kumar.
21 Ld. SPP referring the statements of witnesses and
documents proved by the prosecution on the judicial file argued that
both the accused may be convicted.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED KG
SHARMA.
22 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel for accused
K G Sharma that on 25.8.1986, accused applied for
allotment of shed with Delhi State Industrial Development
Corporation and in response to the said application for
allotment, DSIDC issued letter No.DSIDC/Works/SFS/127
dated 19.9.1986 (Ex.DW1/A). Possession of the shed was
taken on 28.10.1986 (D112) much before the
disbursement of loan by New Bank of India. As per the
ledger (D29 exhibited as Exhibit PW18/K) filed by the
prosecution the first entry itself is of January 1987. In fact
CC No. 17/10 14/70
the Shed was purchased by Mr.K.G.Sharma from his own
sources. The existence of factory at an industrial plot with
some machinery has been admitted by the IO in his cross
examination. Hence, it is incorrect to allege that the
accused submitted application for grant of credit facility
on 23.9.1986 without having any shed or premises for
manufacturing.
23 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that
neither S.R. Chug nor the Accountant of New Bank of
India has been made accused in the present case rather
despite aforesaid allegations of conspiracy and connivance
of Mr. S.R. Chug with K.G. Sharma, Mr S.R. Chug has
been cited as witness.
24 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that
in view of the deposition of PW18 and PW3 it is ample
clear that C.J.S. Bindra was not the loan officer and the
loan officer was alone responsible for the preparation of
loan documents and processing of the loan application and
to see the feasibility of granting loan to a party and
therefore it is incorrect to allege that false scrutiny report
was prepared or forwarded for sanction of loan to the
CC No. 17/10 15/70
applicant/accused.
25 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that
Mr. K.L. Chandna has not been made as accused in the
present case rather he has been cited as a witness and has
been examined as PW16 in the present case.
26 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that no
complaint was filed by the bank at any point of time. As
the 9 bills presented by K.G. Sharma were not found to be
fictitious or forged by the bank, hence no criminal
complaint was ever filed in this regard by the bank official
despite specific guidelines. In fact the Bank filed a civil
suit for recovery.
27 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that
although PW18, IO deposed in his examination in chief
that hundis were returned with remarks "Insufficient
Funds" , however, IO has failed to tender any documents
with such remarks, hence in the absence of any document,
memo or record to show that hundis were returned unpaid
with the remarks "Insufficient Funds", the allegations of
the prosecution can not be accepted that the hundis were
returned unpaid or dishonored.
CC No. 17/10 16/70
28 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the
original hundis were not with the bank which is evident
from the deposition of PW18 i.e.IO. It has been observed
by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court in its order on charge
dated 12.9.2007 that Punjab National Bank (erstwhile New
Bank of India) had filed Civil Suit of recovery against
accused no.1 and 2 etc. and the original documents are
stated to have been filed in that suit. The CBI has filed
true copies of documents i.e. hundis etc on record which
are attested by Manager, New Bank of India. Those
original documents can be filed by the prosecution U/s 242
(2) R/w 311 Cr.P.C. during the trial.
29 Ld. Predecessor of this Court was
falsely made to believe, deliberately and intentionally, that
the original hundis have been filed with the suit in the
Hon'ble High Court and despite statement of Special
Public Prosecutor, the prosecution or the IO did not file
original hundis on record of the present case as the
original hundis were not in existence with the record of
the civil suit.
30 As per the admission of the IO, the original
CC No. 17/10 17/70
hundis were never made available to him therefore, in the
absence of original hundis, it can not be said that the
photocopies of hundis are genuine, facsimile of its
original.
31 As per document forming part of D69
inspection was carried out by Mr. S.R. Chug and C.J.S.
Bindra and has mentioned in its inspection report dated
11.1.1987 regarding hypothecation of machinery of the
value of Rs.8.18 lacs by the borrower M/s R.K. Udyog and
Mr S.R. Chug or C.J.S Bindra nowhere mentioned that the
machinery hypothecated by M/s R.K. Udyog was already
under the charge of Andhra Bank on behalf of M/s. R.K.
Industries. Prosecution did not produced any
evidence/witness from Andhra Bank or otherwise to
substantiate the aforesaid allegations, hence, the
allegations of the prosecution to this effect turn out to be
false and baseless.
32 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there
is no evidence of money paid by Bank of India to M/s
Sona Machines for supply of machines to M/s. R.K.
Udyog. As per PW10 Mr Umesh Kumar, he had issued
cheque dated 24.12.1986 for Rs.1,00,000/ (Ex.PW10/A)
CC No. 17/10 18/70
on behalf of M/s. Sona Machines and Engineers India Pvt
Ltd to M/s. R.K. Udyog and cheque dated 26.12.1986 for
Rs.1,50,000/ (Ex.PW10/B) was issued for issuance of pay
order in favour of M/s. R.K. Industries.
33 As per PW10, the return of amount by him was
in respect of amount received by him prior to 24.12.1986
from M/s R.K. Udyog for supply of machines and the
amount was returned as he failed to supply the machines in
time and on account of delay return of money was
demanded by M/s. R.K. Udyog. Hence, it can not be said
that the payment of aforesaid amount to M/s. R.K. Udyog
was made by PW10 out of the amount received by him
from the bank for supply of machines to M/s. R.K. Udyog,
as prior to 24.12.1986 , no amount was disbursed by New
Bank of India, in any form to M/s R.K. Udyog or to any
one including PW10 or M/s Sona Machines for and on
behalf of M/s. R.K. Udyog for supply of machines. Even
as per PW10 the payment of Rs.1,50,000/ was made to
M/s R.K. Industries and he accepted in his cross
examination that he had dealings with R.K.Industries
earlier also.
34 PW10 received any amount from the bank for
CC No. 17/10 19/70
supply of machines to M/s. R.K. Udyog or had PW10
returned the said amount instead of supplying machines to
the accused, in that eventuality, PW10 Umesh Kumar
would not have been cited as a witness rather he would
have been made as accused for making payment to the
accused in lieu of the amount received by him from New
Bank of India for supply of machinery to M/s. R.K.
Udyog.
35 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that
prosecution has examined Mr Ashok Dargan , Sr. Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce as PW2, who deposed that
Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/3 (photocopies) of M/s. Raja Sons
were received for collection but were returned unrealized
and were sent back to Bank of India. PW2 admitted in the
cross that hundis was recorded in register.
36 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that despite
admission by PW2 regarding entries of hundis in register,
the prosecution or PW2 failed to produce any
record/register to prove that the aforesaid two hundis were
received for collection by PW2 or the same were returned
unrealized to Bank of India.
37 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that on the
CC No. 17/10 20/70
other hand, accused Raman Chaddha, Prop. M/s. Raja Sons
accepted during trial that D2 and D5 were issued and
accepted by his Proprietorship concern i.e. M/s. Raja Sons,
hence, it can not be said that the aforesaid hundis were not
genuine or the same were forged by the accused.
38 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that
prosecution had cited Ranbir Bhardwaj, the alleged
executant of aforesaid hundis of M/s S.K. Trading,
however the prosecution did not produce and examine said
Ranbir Bhardwaj during the trial. Since, the prosecution
has failed to prove that the aforesaid Hundis were issued
by Ranbir Bhardwaj or not, hence, it can not be said that
the aforesaid hundis were not genuine or the same were
forged by the accused.
39 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW3
R.K. Vij in his statement recorded by CBI U/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
during the investigation marked as Ex.PW3/D1, has
specifically stated that hundis were accepted by drawee
through bankers. Hence, there is no reason to suspect its
genuineness or the genuineness of the parties, who issued
the said hundis.
CC No. 17/10 21/70
40 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW17
Govind Singh was examined by the prosecution, however,
the said witness is not relevant at all in respect of the facts
and circumstance of the case because PW17 as per his
deposition was working in the office of Dayal Singh,
Chartered Accountant, during the period 1995 to 2010 and
he used to sit in the office and attend the telephone and
provide assistance to C.A. whose office was situated in
1995 on Hardhyan Singh Road, Karol Bagh, and thereafter
shifted to 9642/12, Sadar Thana Road, Pahar Ganj, New
Delhi and the aforesaid hundis which are subject matter of
this case were executed in the year 1988. Hence, this
witness who has worked during the period 1995 to 2010 is
not competent to depose in respect of existence of M/s.
S.K. Trading at the aforesaid address during the year 1988
or not. In fact the chargesheet in this case was filed on
16.11.1994 Thus it demonstrates the fabrication of
evidence.
41 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that a bare
perusal of the aforesaid two hundis shows that one S.
Aggarwal had allegedly executed the said hundis on behalf
of M/s Electronic Wound Component Co., however, the
CC No. 17/10 22/70
prosecution did not took any sample of handwriting of Mr
S.P. Aggarwal which has been so admitted by his son i.e.
PW12 Dhananjay Aggarwal. It is indicated that it was
incumbent on the part of prosecution to collect the sample
of handwriting and signature of Mr. S.P. Aggarwal for
comparison of the signature on the aforesaid hundis to
establish the genuineness of the signature on the said
hundi, however, the prosecution has deliberately and
intentionally had not taken any sample of handwriting and
signature of Mr S.P. Aggarwal, in order to falsely
implicate the accused.
42 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW14
Shiv Kumar Sharma had denied the existence of M/s
Electronic Wound Component Company at C22, DSIDC,
Nangloi, Delhi. Prosecution has not proved that PW14
was allottee or owner of the Industrial shed at C22,
DSIDC , Nangloi, Delhi, hence, the evidence of PW14 can
not be relied upon.
43 The IO has not enquired into or placed on record
any proof of allotment/ownership of this shed. An allottee
of industrial shed is not entitled or authorized to letout in
part or as a whole any industrial shed to any other person
CC No. 17/10 23/70
and on account of this reason as well, it was not expected
from PW14 to accept the existence of M/s Electronic
Wound Component Co Ltd at C22, DSIDC, Nangloi, Delhi
as it would have been contrary to the terms and conditions
of allotment of said industrial shed. PW19 Mr Harpal
Singh has accepted his signature on both the hundis and
has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or the
signature on the hundis are in the hand of accused K.G.
Sharma. It is argued that in view of admission by PW19
Mr Harpal Singh regarding aforesaid hundis, it can not be
said that the said hundis were forged and the allegations
on the accused with respect to the same were baseless.
44 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that out of 9
hundis, 2 hundis of M/s. Raja Sons have been accepted by
accused Raman Chadha and 2 hundis of M/s. Maxwell
Electricals & Electronics have been accepted by PW19 Mr
Harpal Singh and in respect of 5 hundis of M/s. S.K.
Trading, the prosecution has failed to examine its
executant Mr Ranbir Bhadwaj despite citing him as
witness, hence, under such circumstances, it is amply clear
that the prosecution has failed to prove that the hundis
were forged.
CC No. 17/10 24/70
45 It is argued that in the absence of
original hundis, it can not be said that the photocopies are
genuine facsimile of its original, hence, the opinion of
PW13 based on photocopies of documents can not be
relied upon or taken into account. It is further indicated
that the opinion of PW13 is further proved wrong in view
of admission by accused Raman Chadha and PW19 Harpal
Singh regarding genuineness of the Hundis and their
signature on the same.
46 Infact it was a case of non payment of
loan amount and on account of outstanding of dues of Rs.
18,00,000/ against M/s. R.K. Udyog, the New Bank of
India instituted a Civil Suit No. 3250/1991 for recovery of
Rs.32,63,875/ including amount of loan with interest.
Later on, the said suit was transferred from the Hon'ble
High Court to Debt Recovery Tribunal wherein the matter
was amicably settled and a sum of Rs.25,00,000/ was paid
by M/s. R.K. Udyog and the accused no.2 in terms of
amicable settlement of the case and accordingly the said
suit was disposed of as settled in the year 2001.
47 It is argued that the New Bank of India
instituted Civil Suit for recovery only as no fictitious or
CC No. 17/10 25/70
forged hundis were deposited with them by the accused
nor any cheating was committed by the accused. It is
further indicated that, infact after the merger of New Bank
of India with Punjab National Bank, lot of cases were filed
against the employees of Bank of India and similarly in
order to falsely implicate Mr C.J.S. Bindra, the then
Branch Manager of New Bank of India, Rani Bagh Branch,
the officials of Punjab National Bank conspired with
officials of CBI and implicated him in a false case and the
accused persons have also been roped in the said false case
in order to achieve their target. This is evident from the
fact that the present case was not registered on the basis of
any formal complaint by any official of Punjab National
Bank and the CBI in connivance with the officials of
Punjab National Bank registered the present case on the
basis of alleged source information so that the officials
responsible for the institution of the false case may not
come in the light. This fact has been corroborated by PW9
Mr Anil Kumar Jain who has categorically admitted in his
cross examination at Page 2 that number of criminal cases
were filed against the officers of erstwhile New Bank of
India after its merger with Punjab National Bank.
CC No. 17/10 26/70
48 In view of the averments made herein above, it is
ample clear that the prosecution has lodged a false case
and has falsely implicated the accused person and has
miserably failed to establish its case, hence the accused
be acquitted of the charged offence.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
RAMAN CHADHA
49 It is argued on behalf of accused Raman Chadha
that he was running his business under the name and Style
M/s Raja Sons as its sole proprietor. He had also opened
account of his firm M/s Raja Sons in the bank and
accepted the two Hundis in question in the regular course
of his business.
50 It is argued that only a charge of committing
criminal conspiracy U/s120 B of IPC has been framed
against accused. Hundis were returned unpaid due to
financial constrained which is merely a civil liability.
Bank could have filed a suit for recovery. Prosecution has
failed to prove any malafide/ dishonest intention on the
part of accused. Accused has not committed any criminal
offence, hence he may be acquitted.
51 Accused RamanChadha has filed detailed written
CC No. 17/10 27/70
submission which is on file hence on account of brevity I
am not incorporating all his arguments in this judgment
however I will deal his arguments at appropriate stage in
this judgment.
SANCTION AND PUBLIC SERVANT
52 Sh. CJ S Bindra, since deceased, was the then working as
Branch Manager in New Bank of India, Rani Bagh Branch who had
prepared the scrutiny report and forwarded the proposal of loan for
sanction to the Regional office. This fact has not been disputed by
any of the accused. Thus, it is undisputed that deceased C J S Bindra
was a public servant.
53 PW15 Sh. P K Gupta has deposed that in September 1994
he was working as Zonal Manager, PNB, Lucknow. By virtue of his
post he was competent to remove Manager Scale II from his
post/service. He has further deposed that he had received papers
from vigilance department, head office, Delhi and after perusing the
statement, documents, investigation report, he accorded sanction for
the prosecution of accused C J S Bindra who was then working as
Scale II Manager. He has identified his signatures on the sanction
order dt. 29.9.94 which is Ex PW15/A.
CC No. 17/10 28/70
54 I have also gone through the ExPW15/A which is a
detailed order running in three sheets having all the material
particulars of this case. In view of above discussion this court is of
opinion that prosecution has produced and proved a valid sanction
order for the prosecution of accused CJS Bindra, in this case.
ROLE OF ACCUSED C J S BINDRA AS PER PROSECUTION
55 Accused CJS Bindra had died during the pendency of
this case on 2.11.05. CBI was directed to verify the fact of death of
accused CJS Bindra. Accordingly CBI verified the fact of death of
accused and confirmed that he has expired. Hence, my Ld.
Predecessor vide his order dt. 22.2.06 has abated the present
proceedings against him.
56 According to prosecution accused C JS Bindra, since
deceased, was the then working as Branch Manager, in New Bank
of India, Rani Bagh Branch who in connivance and conspiracy with
accused K G Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s R K Udyog and Raman
Chadha prepared a false scrutiny report and forwarded the loan
proposal for sanction to Regional Office. He overlooked the terms
and conditions laid down by Regional office before disbursement of
loan to R K Udyog and released the term loan amount without
deposit of amount of Rs.15 lac as recommended by the Regional
CC No. 17/10 29/70
Office. Accused C J S Bindra had also failed to ensure the supply of
machinery by the Sona Machine and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. to M/s R K
Udyog. He had submitted false inspection report citing the old
machineries and discounted 11 bogus Hundies of non existing firm
and credits the amount in the account of M/s R K Udyog represented
by K G Sharma.
ROLE OF ACCUSED K G SHARMA ACCORDING TO
PROSECUTION AND EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM
57 According to prosecution accused K G Sharma and
Sh.Raman Chaddha both private persons entered into a criminal
conspiracy with late Sh.C.J.S.Bindra the then Branch Manager, New
Bank of India, Rani Bagh, New Delhi to cheat New Bank of India,
Rani Bagh, New Delhi and late Sh.C.J.S.Bindra abusing his official
position as a public Servant obtained pecuniary advantage by
allowing the credit facilities in favor of M/s R.K.Udhyog without
procurring a fixed deposit of Rs.15 lakhs which was a special
condition in the term loan agreement and that Sh.K.G.Sharma did not
purchase any machinery from M/s.Sona Manchines and Engineers
Pvt Ltd and Sh.K.G.Sharma in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy
got 11 hundies other than the hundies of reputed firms like Usha,
Khatian, Polar, Cool Home etc as per sanction order discounted
through late Sh.CJ.S.Bindra out of which 2 hundies were of
CC No. 17/10 30/70
electronic wound components, 2 of Maxwell Elctrical and
Electronics and 5 of M/s.S.K.Trading company bearing the forged
signatures of the Proprieters of the said companies by
Sh.K.G.Sharma and Raman Chaddha also got discounted the two
hundies after opening an account in the name of a nonexisting firm
M/s.Raja Sons vide account No.897 with Oriental Bank Of
Commerce, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi.
58 According to prosecution C J S Bindra in conspiracy with
K G Sharma discounted 11 hundies and the amounts were credited
in the account of M/s R. K. Udyog represented by K.G. Sharma. K.
G. Sharma also forged the signatures of alleged proprietor of some
firms in whose favour the hundies were drawn and all the hundies
were returned unrealized to New Bank of India, Rani Bagh, New
Delhi on account of insufficient funds. Bringing of a deposit of Rs.
15,00,000/ was a precondition for the release of credit facilities
which was not adhered to by late C.J. S Bindra and this is how by
abusing his position as a public servant he obtained pecuniary
advantages in favour of Sh. K. G. Sharma accused.
59 Sh. R. K. Vij, PW3 has proved the sanction note
Ex.PW3/1 and Sh. K. L. Chandana, PW16 has proved the
enhancement of credit facilities vide note Ex.PW16/A which clearly
provides that the hundies only of reputed concerns viz. Polar, Usha,
CC No. 17/10 31/70
Khaitan, Cool Home etc. could be discounted and that credit
facilities were to be released only after getting a fixed deposit of Rs.
15,00,000/ from the borrower but neither the 11 hundies were of
reputed firms nor FDR of Rs.15,00,000/ was procured from the
borrower before release of credit facilities.
60 PW3 R K Viz was working as Manager Vigilance in the
year 1991 in the Head Office of erstwhile New Bank of India. He
had conducted vigilance enquiry in respect to the account of M/s R K
Udhyog maintained at Rani Bagh Branch, New Bank of India. He
has deposed that at that time Mr. C J S Bindra was the Branch
Manager in Rani Bagh Branch of New Bank of India. He has proved
the loan sanction note Ex PW3/A vide which the loan in question
was sanctioned in favour of RK Udhypg. Relevent portion of his
statement is as under:
"I have seen Ex PW3/A and state that a
sum of Rs.3.75 lakhs was sanctioned as term loan, Rs.
5.5 lakhs as C C Hypothecation and Rs.3.5 lakhs on
account of bill discounting in favour of M/s RK
Udhyog. The terms and conditions of bill discounting
are mentioned in the sanction note. So far as I
recollect, the main condition was that the hundies
must be drawn and accepted by the reputed firms and
only bills of such firms should be discounted. The
firms mentioned were M/s Usha, M/s Crompton, M/s
ECG etc. whose Hundies could be discounted by the
concerned branch of New Bank of India."
CC No. 17/10 32/70
61 In sanction note Ex PW3/A following conditions have
been imposed"
" Against accepted Hudnis 7 reputed
concern like Usha, Khaitan, Polar, Cool Home
etc. upto 45 days.
(a) All above limits shall be collaterally
secured by quitable mortgage of plot of land
measuring 4700 sq. yards situated near SFS of
DDA, Vasant Kunj, Delhi worth Rs. 14 lAKHS, in
the name of Haish Kumar guarantor,
(b) Equitable mortgage of DSIDC
builtup Industrial Shed at Industrial Area, Rohtak
Road, Delhi worth Rs.4.05 lakhs (market value Rs.
6 lakhs)
Personal Guarantee
Personal Guarantee of Sh. Harish
Kumar having net mean of Rs.15.70 lakhs.
Special condition: Payee will
introduce deposits worth Rs.15.00 lakhs before
disbursement of these facilities."
62 Harish Kumar who has been shown as guarantor for the
term loan advanced to Ms R K Udyog through its proprietor K G
Sharma has deposed that he does not know any person named K G
Sharma. He never stood guarantor for him. He has also denied that
alleged guarantee form mark A(D96) does not bear his signatures at
point X. Harish Kumar has appeared in the witness box as PW4.
Entire statement of this witness and his cross examination is as
under:
CC No. 17/10 33/70
"In the year 1984 I purchased land
measuring 4 bighas situated in village Rangpuri,
near Palam from some Bhoop Singh through one
Tiwari. i sold this land after one year to some
Shashi Singh and some other pesons whose name I
do not remember. I do not know K G Sharma. I
never stood guarantor for K G Sharma. My
shop is situated at 5033 Kuchha Pandit, Purani
Delhi near Cinema Hall.
I have seen document mark A (D96)
which does not bear my signatures at poiint "X". I
do not reside at 5035 Kucha Pandit, Purani Delhi. I
do not have any plot at Lajpat Nagar.
XXX by Sh. Ayub Khan, Advocate proxy counsel
for Sh. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for accused no.1
& 2 and Sh. Y Kahol, Adcvocate for accused No.4
I knew Mr. Tiwari since 1982. I have
not been visiting Mr. Tiwari afte the transaction.
Mr. Tiwari did not obtqin any signatures on several
papers. I cannot tell on which paper I signed
when I pruchased the land. It is incorrect to
suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is also
incorrect to suggest that I signed the documents of
guarantee in the bank at the instance of Mr.
Tiwari."
63 According to sanction note Ex PW3/A amount is to be
disbursed after obtaining deposit of Rs.15 lac but accused K G
Sharma had not fulfilled this condition and accused the then Branch
Manager had disbursed the amount without getting the deposit of Rs.
15 lac in violation of the sanction note Ex PW3/A.
CC No. 17/10 34/70
64 According to sanction note Ex PW3/A Hundis of reputed
concern like Usha, Khaitan, Polar , Cool Home etc. were to be
accepted . In this case accused CJS Bindra had discounted Hundis of
firm like Raja Sons, S K Trading, Maxwell Electronics and Electric
Wound Components Company Ltd. which were not the reputed
concern like Usha Khaitan, Polar , Cool Home etc.
65 Five hundis D8(Ex.PW1/4) dated 25.9.1988,
D9(Ex.PW1/5) dated 26.9.1988,D10(Ex.PW1/6) dated 28.9.1988,
D12(Ex.PW1/7) dated 8.8.1988, D14(Ex.PW1/8) dated 7.8.1988
accepted on behalf of S.K.Trading by its alleged proprietor. All
these five hundis discounted by CJ S Bindra, the then Branch
Manager, New Bank of India, Rani Bagh Branch which were
received back unrealised.
66 Ex PW1/4 (D8) is the original Hundi for Rs.
50,504.84p. It has been signed on behalf of S K Trading Co. by its
alleged proprietor at point Q10 as R Bhardwaj. According to
Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q10 on
Ex PW1/4, "R Bhardwaj" is in the handwriting of accused K G
Sharma. Thus, it proves that the signatures R Bhardwaj as proprietor
of S K Trading Co. has been forged by accused K G Sharma.
67 Ex PW1/5 (D9) is the original Hundi for Rs.
CC No. 17/10 35/70
48,584.31p. It has been signed on behalf of S K Trading Co. by its
alleged proprietor at point Q11 as R Bhardwaj. According to
Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q11 on
Ex PW1/5, "R Bhardwaj" is in the handwriting of accused K G
Sharma. Thus, it proves that the signatures R Bhardwaj as proprietor
of S K Trading Co. has been forged by accused K G Sharma.
68 Ex PW1/6 (D10) is the photocopy (attested as true copy)
of original Hundi for Rs.26,618/ It has been signed on behalf of S
K Trading Co. by its alleged proprietor at point Q12 as R Bhardwaj.
Alongwith Hundi Ex PW1/6 invoice issued on behalf of R K Udyog
in favour of S K Trading Co. has been enclosed which is Ex
PW13/E. It also bears signatures of alleged proprietor of S K Trading
on account of acceptance of the invoice as R Bhardwaj at point Q13.
According to Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at
point Q12 & Q13 on Ex PW1/6 and ex PW13/E , "R Bhardwaj" are
in the handwriting of accused K G Sharma. Thus, it proves that the
signatures R Bhardwaj as proprietor of S K Trading Co. has been
forged by accused K G Sharma.
69 Ex PW1/7 (D12) is the photocopy (attested as true copy)
of original Hundi for an amount of Rs.48,218.06 p. It has been
signed on behalf of S K Trading Co. by its alleged proprietor at
point Q14 as R Bhardwaj. According to Handwriting Expert Report
CC No. 17/10 36/70
Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q14 on Ex PW1/7, "R Bhardwaj" is
in the handwriting of accused K G Sharma. Thus, it proves that the
signatures R Bhardwaj as proprietor of S K Trading Co. has been
forged by accused K G Sharma.
70 Ex PW1/8 (D14) is the photocopy (attested as true copy)
of original Hundi for an amount of Rs.49,253.44p. It has been
signed on behalf of S K Trading Co. by its alleged proprietor at
point Q16 as R Bhardwaj. According to Handwriting Expert Report
Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q16 on Ex PW1/8, "R Bhardwaj" is
in the handwriting of accused K G Sharma. Thus, it proves that the
signatures R Bhardwaj as proprietor of S K Trading Co. has been
forged by accused K G Sharma.
71 Ex PW1/9 (D15) is the photocopy (attested as true copy)
of original Hundi for an amount of Rs.47,193.26p. It has been
signed on behalf of Maxwell Electricals and Electronics. by its
alleged proprietor at point Q17 as H Singh. According to
Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q17 on
Ex PW1/9, " H Singh" is in the handwriting of accused K G Sharma.
Thus, it proves that the signatures H Singh as proprietor of Maxwell
Electricals and Electronics has been forged by accused K G Sharma.
72 Ex PW11/10 (D16) is the photocopy (attested as true
copy) of original Hundi for an amount of Rs.40,362.22p. It has been
CC No. 17/10 37/70
signed on behalf of Maxwell Electricals and Electronics. by its
alleged proprietor at point Q18 as H Singh. According to
Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q18 on
Ex PW1/10, " H Singh" is in the handwriting of accused K G
Sharma. Thus, it proves that the signatures H Singh as proprietor of
Maxwell Electricals and Electronics has been forged by accused K G
Sharma.
73 Harpal Singh has appeared in the witness box as PW19.
He has deposed that he had started his firm M/s Maxwell Electricals
and Electronics in the year 198687. The firm was got registered.
He has also deposed that signatures at point Q17 & Q18 on both
these Hundis Ex PW1/9 and Ex PW1/10 are his signatures. This
witness was declared hostile on the request of Ld. Sr. PP. His entire
statement is as under:
"M/S Maxwell Electrical
and Electronics was my firm which
was started by me in the year 198687.
The firm was got registered by me. I
know accused K G Sharma . I have
seen two hundies Ex PW1/9 and
PW1/10 and signatures as Proprietor at
Q17 and Q18 are my signatures. I do
not remember if my statement was
recorded by the CBI.
At this stage Ld SPP made
a request that this witness is resiling
from his previous statement and
CC No. 17/10 38/70
concealing the truth hence this witness
may be declared hostile and
permission to cross examine this
witness may be granted to the
prosecution . Request allowed.
XXXXXXXXX On behalf of Ld SPP
My statement was never
recorded by CBI. I never stated before
CBI that M/S Maxwell Electrical and
Electronics never function from E56
Mayapuri PhaseII N Delhi. I never
stated before CBI that I applied for
registration in the sales Tax but he
same was denied to me as a result M/S
Maxwell Electrical and Electronics
could not function . Vol. the
machinery of M/S Maxwell Electrical
and Electronics is still lying there. It is
incorrect to suggest that signatures at
point Q17 and Q18 are not mine. I
had not stated before CBI that I am
familiar with the writings of accused K
G Sharma, Proprietor of R K Udyog as
I had long association with him and
can say with certainty that signatures
as " H Singh " are in the hand writing
of K G Sharma. I had made the
payments of Hundie Ex PW1/9 and
PW1/10. It is incorrect to suggest that
I am deposing falsely just to safe the
accused."
74 Harpal Singh had opened C C Account no. 2427 in State
Bank of India, Mayapuri Branch on 19.1.88 in the name of M/S
Maxwell Electrical and Electronics as its proprietor. While opening
CC No. 17/10 39/70
the above said current account he had filled in account opening form
Ex PW6/A2 and signed the same as Hsarana He has also given his
specimen signatures. Prosecution has also proved specimen
signature card Ex PW6/A wherein also Harpal Singh has signed as
Hsarna. I have compared signatures of Harpal Singh, signed by
him as Hsarana on Ex PW6/1 and Ex PW6/2 and as H Singh
allegedly signed by him on Hundis Ex PW1/9 and Ex PW1/10.
From a bare perusal of both these signatures it is clear that there is
world of difference between the two signatures. Thus, it is proved
that Hundis Ex PW1/9 and PW1/10 had actually not been signed by
Harpal Singh, proprietor of M/s Maxwell Electricals and Electronics
but his signatures on both these hundis have been forged by accused
K G Sharma.
75 Interestingly enough, Harpal Singh has deposed that he
made the payments of Hundis Ex PW1/9 and Ex PW1/10 which is
absolutely wrong because both these hundis were returned unpaid.
Relevant portion of his cross examination by Ld. Sr. PP is as under:
"I had made the payments of Hundi
Ex PW1/9 and PW1/10. It is incorrect to suggest
that I am deposing falsely just to save the
accused."
76 From the above discussion it is clear that PW Harpal
CC No. 17/10 40/70
Singh has concealed the truth when he has appeared in the court for
the reasons best known to him.
77 Ex PW1/13 (D17) is the photocopy (attested as true
copy) of original Hundi dt. 2.12.88 for an amount of Rs.48,584.30p.
It has been signed on behalf of Electronics Wound Components Co.
by its alleged proprietor at point Q19 as S Aggarwal. According to
Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K signatures at point Q19 on
Ex PW1/13, " S Aggarwal" is in the handwriting of accused K G
Sharma. Thus, it proves that the signatures S Aggarwal as proprietor
of Electronics Wound Components Co. has been forged by accused
K G Sharma.
78 Ex PW13/G (D18) is the photocopy (attested
as true copy) of original Hundi dt. 3.12.88 for an amount of Rs.
46002.67p. It has been signed on behalf of Electronics Wound
Components Co. by its alleged proprietor at point Q20 as S
Aggarwal. According to Handwriting Expert Report Ex PW13/K
signatures at point Q20 on Ex PW13/G, " S Aggarwal" is in the
handwriting of accused K G Sharma. Thus, it proves that the
signatures S Aggarwal as proprietor of Electronics Wound
Components Co. has been forged by accused K G Sharma.
CC No. 17/10 41/70
79 PW12 Dhanjay Aggarwal has deposed that he and his
father were the partners of M/s Electronics Wound Components Co.
Only he and his father were authorised to accept the Hundis. He has
deposed that Hundis in question does not bear signatures of his
father, S P Aggarwal or any of the partner of his firm. He has given
the address of his firm as U48, Shakarpur, Delhi92.
80 In view of above discussion it is proved that all these
Hundis are false/ fictitious and forged by accused K G Sharma
because as per opinion of Handwriting Expert all these Hundis have
been signed by accused K G Sharma as proprietor of SK Trading
Co., Maxwell Electronics and Electricals and M/s Electronics
Wound Components Co.
81 From the above discussion it is proved beyond
reaonable doubt that none of the two hundis of Electronic Wound
Components, two hundies of Maxwell Electricals and Electronics, five
hundies of S. K. Trading Company which were presented by accused
K.G. Sharma in the bank after getting accepted were discounted by
Late C. J. S. Bindra, and the same could not be realized when sent for
collection and as such were returned unrealized. It has also been
proved by overwhelming evidence that none of the hundies pertained
to reputed firms viz. Polar, Usha, Khaitan, Cool Home etc. It has also
been proved that credit facilities were released without obtaining an
FDR for Rs.15,00,000/- which was a condition precedent for the
CC No. 17/10 42/70
release of credit facilities.
82 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that in absence of the
original Hundis it cannot be said that photocopies are genuine
fascimile of its original. Hence, the opinion of PW13 based on
photocopies of documents cannot be relied upon. It is also argued
that the opinion of PW13 is proved wrong in view of admission
made by accused Raman Chadha and PW19 Harpal Singh regarding
the genuinity of their signatures on the Hundis.
83 I have carefully gone through the statement of PW13 and
its report Ex PW13/K and his reasons for opinion Ex PW13/L.
PW13 is a competent Handwriting Expert serving in CFSL having a
long experience in examination of questioned documents. He has
deposed that opinion can be given even after compariing the
specimen writing with the photostat copies of questioned
documents. He has been cross examined at length on behalf of
accused K G Sharma. Relevant portionof his cross examination is as
under:
"It is also correct that Osborn has
stated that it is better to have greater number of
known specimens for comparison. It is correct
that as per Osborn it is necessary to have genuine
signatures written nearest in date to the date of
questioned signatures. It is correct that Osborn
has stated that it is necessary to have genuine
signatures written on similar material e.g. Unlined
CC No. 17/10 43/70
stationery, printed forms, cheques, similar papers
etc. It is correct that Osborn has stated that it is
necessary to have genuine signatures written
under the same alleged or known circumstances.
It is correct that Osborn has stated that it is
necessary to have genuine signatures written with
the similar writing instruments like ball pen,
roller pen, fountain pen, pencil etc. It is incorrect
to suggest that opinion of handwriting expert is
never conclusive. It is incorrect to suggest that
even if all procedures are correctly followed, the
handwriting opinion can only be indicative. Vol.
It is suggestion of Mr. Osborn and it is advisable
but not essential to follow the above noted
suggestions.
It is incorrect to suggest that baseless
opinion has been given by me under pressure
from CBI. It is incorrect to suggest that in this
case there was no material to make a genuine
comparison. It is incorrect to suggest that all
required steps for comparison cannot be done on
the basis of photocopies documents. The
authenticity of photocopies documents may or
may not be questionable. It is incorrect to
suggest that I have not given any detailed report.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have not given any
reasons for my observations and inferences. It is
incorrect to suggest that I have not given any
reasons to CBI because of which it is not part of
record. Vol. I had already sent the reasons to CBI
in 1995. It is incorrect to suggest that reasons
given by me at this stage of court proceedings I
have deliberately not been dated. It is incorrect
to suggest that these reasons and explanations
have been made up by me as an after thought
under pressure from CBI to plug the loopholes
and to somehow to improve the case when no
CC No. 17/10 44/70
material is coming on the record. It is incorrect to
suggest that I have given my opinion against the
established procedure under pressure from CBI at
their instance and dictation. It is incorrect to
suggest that in this case I have not seen any
original document and given my report without
examining the same."
84 Accused could have produced some handwriting expert
in his defence to prove that opinion cannot be given after comparing
the specimen writing with the photostat copies on questioned
writing, but accused has not produced any Handwriting Expert, in his
defence evidence, for the reasons best known to him. In the present
case photostat copies of the Hundis in question have been attested as
true copy of the original, thus it cannot be said that these photocopies
are not the true/ correct fascimile of the original Hundis. It is worth
important to mention here that two Hundis Ex PW1/4 (D8), and
EX PW1/5 (D9) are the original Hundis signatures on which at
point Q10and Q11 were compared by PW13 with the specimen
signatures of accused K G Sharma and reached to the conclusion
that the same are in his handwriting.
85 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal Vs.
CC No. 17/10 45/70
State of Madhya Pradesh (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 704 with
regard to evidenciary value of Handwriting Expert Report and its
corroboration by other evidence has held as follows:
"Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 45,
46, 73 and 3 - Evidence of handwriting expert -
Held, need not be invariably corrborated - It is for
the Court to decide whether to accept such an
uncorroborated evidence or not - Court should
approach the question cautiously and after
examining the reasonings behind the expert opinion
and considering all other evidence should reach its
conclusion - Even where there is no expert court
has power to compare the writings itself and decide
the matter - On facts, courts below on such
comparison concurring with the exper's view and
the defence raising no doubts against the reasons
given by the expert for his opinion - Held, opinion
evidence acceptable without any corroboration."
86 Similar view has been taken Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ram Narain Vs. Uttar Pradesh AIR 1973 SC 2200 wherein
it is held as follows:
"Both under Section 45 and Section 47
the evidence is an opinion in the former by a
scientific comparison, and in the latter on the basis
of familiarity resulting from frequent observatrions
and experience. in either case the Court must
satisfy itself by such means as are open that the
opinion may be acted upon. One such means open
to the Court is to apply its own observation to the
admitted or proved writings and to compare them
with the disputed one, not to become a handwriting
expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the
CC No. 17/10 46/70
one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in
the other case. This comparison depends on an
analysis of the characterstics in the admitted or
proved writings and the finding of the same
characterstics in large measure in the disputed
writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent
whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and
although relevant to start with becomes probative.
Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must
see for itself and with the assistance of the expert
come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be
held that the two writings are by the same person.
This is not to say that the Court must play the role
of an expert but to say that the Court may accept
the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself
on its own observation that it is safe to accept the
opinion whether of the expert or other witness."
87 In view of above discussion there is no merit in this
argument of Ld. Defence counsel.
88 PW13 Sh.M L sharma, in his report has opined that
signatures at point Q2 on Hundi Ex PW1/1 and at point Q7 on
Hundi Ex PW1/3 are of accused Raman Chadha while accused
Raman Chadha has also admitted that signatures at point Q2 and Q7
are of his, thus Raman Chadha has supported the Handwriting report
ExPW13/K. With regard to signatures of PW19 Harpal Singh as H
Singh at point Q 17 & Q18 on Hundis Ex PW1/9 and Ex PW1/10,
PW13 has opined that these signatures are in the handwriting of
CC No. 17/10 47/70
accused K G Sharma. PW19 Harpal Singh, in his statement, in this
court, has deposed that signatures at points Q17 and Q18 are of his.
As discussed above, I myself compared his signatures on account
opening form and specimen signatures card Ex PW6/A1 and Ex
PW6/A2 of C C account No.2427 opened in the name of
M/sMaxwell Electronics and Electricals by Harpal Singh, as its
proprietor with the signatures at points Q17 andQ18 on the Hundis in
question and I am of considered opinion that signatures on Q17 and
Q18 do not tally with the signatures of PW19 Harpal Singh on Ex
PW6/A1 and Ex PW6/A2. He has spoken a lie in his statement, in
this regard.Thus, I am of opinion that report of Handwriting Expert
Ex PW13/K is also correct qua signatures of Harpal Singh at point
Q17 andQ18.
89 It is argued that investigating agency has not taken the
sepcmen writing/signatures of Ranbir Bhardwaj and prosecution has
not produced him in the witness box during the trial , in this court,
therefore, prosecution has failed to prove that signatures onthe
Hundis of M/s SK Trading are not that of Ranbir Bhardwaj.
Prosecution has cited Ranbir Bhardwaj at serial No. 6 of the list of
witnesses, filed in this court alongwith the charge sheet. Summons
were also issued to R Bhardwaj for securing his presence inthe
witness box but summons received back with the report that he is not
CC No. 17/10 48/70
residing at the given address. It is also reported that he was residing
in the rented accommodation which he had vacated in the year
199293. In these circumstances no adverse inference can be drawn
against prosecution for his non appearance in the witness box. From
the above discussion it is also proved on the judicial file that K G
Sharma had forged his signatures on five Hundis Ex PW1/4, Ex
PW1/5,Ex PW1/6, Ex PW1/7, Ex PW1/8 at points Q 10, to Q14 and
Q16. In these circumstances when prosecution has produced
positive evidence in support of its case not obtaining of specimen
signatures of R Bhardwaj, during the investigation is not fatal to the
case of prosecution.
90 It is argued that investigating agency has not taken the
specimen writing/signatures of S P Aggarwal and prosecution has
not cited him as witness in this case, therefore, adverse inference
should be drawn against prosecution.
91 Prosecution has produced Sh. Dhanjay Aggarwal s/o S P
Aggarwal as PW12 in the witness box who has deposed that he and
his father S P Aggarwal were the partners in firm M/s Electronics
Wound Components Co. and signatures at point Q19 and Q20 on
Hundis in question are not that of his father. In these circumstances
when prosecution has produced son of S P Aggarwal who was also a
partner of firm M/s Electronic Wound Components Co. alongwith
CC No. 17/10 49/70
his father and produced the positive evidence in support of its case
that signatures at point Q19 and Q20 are in the handwriting of
accused K G Sharma, not obtaining of specimen signatures of S P
Aggarwal, during the investigation and not citing him as witness in
this case, is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
92 It is aruged that bank has not filed any complaint for
registration of this case. It is well settled legal preposition that
anybody can set criminal law in motion . There is no legal
requirement of filing a formal complaint by the bank for registration
of this case.
93 It is argued that prosecution has not proved that Hundis
were returned unpaid because the same are forged and bear forged
signatures. It is proved beyond reasonable doubts on the judicial
file that Hundis in question were returned unrealised by the
concerned bank. It hardly matters whatever may be the reason for
returning the Hundis unrealised.
94 It is argued that prosecution has not proved that shed
No.C22 DSIDC, Nangloi was allotted to PW 14Shiv Kumar
Sharma. PW14 Shiv Kumar Sharma has been cross examined at
length on behalf of accused No.1 and 2. His entire cross
examination is as under:
"When I come in the Court I had
CC No. 17/10 50/70
commented that I do not know anything about this
case. Today I have not brought any proof of my
ownership of this shed. I was running a business of
manufacturing auto spare. For sometime I had
also run electrical hardware shop as well as
industries during the period round about 1989. It is
incorrect that rear portion of my shed was vacant.
It is also wrong to suggest that I had let out that
rear portion of my shed. I used to sit on the this
shed. My son had never worked or sit in this shed. I
was having licenses for manufacturing of auto parts
etc. My firm was not regd with excise for
manufacturing. My firm was a Proprietorship firm.
The shed was allotted to me for industrial purpose.
It is correct that as per rule it cannot be let out on
rent. It is incorrect to suggest that I have falsely
stated that no firm by the name of M/S Electronic
Wound Component Co; existed at C22 as legally it
cannot be let out. I was summoned in CBI office
and my statement was recorded. It is wrong to
sugest that I do not know anything about this case
and I am deposing at the instance of CBI .
Volunteer after seeing the documents I recollect the
facts."
95 Following suggestions have been given to this witness on
behalf of accused:
"It is incorrect that rear portion of my
shed was vacant. It is also wrong to suggest that I
had let out that rear portion of my shed."
96 From the above suggestions given on behalf of accused
by Ld. defence counsel it is apparent that he was admitting him as
the owner of this shed. Not even a suggestion has been given to this
CC No. 17/10 51/70
witness that he was not the owner of shed No.C22. This witness has
specifically denied that he has falsely deposed that no firm named
M/s Electronics Wound Components Co. was existed. In view of
above discussion there is no merit in this argument of Ld. Defence
Counsel.
97 It is argued on behalf of accused that accused CJ S Bindra
has been falsely implicated in this case by CBI at the instance of
officers of PNB with which New Bank of India was merged. CBI is
a Prime Investigating Agency of the country. CBI is not under the
influence of any bank officer. Accused has not produced any
evidence to prove or show as to why and what for CBI has falsely
implicated him in this case. As discussed above there is enough
evidence on the file that accused C J S Bindra had disbursed the
loan amount without obtaining the FDR of Rs.15 lac from the
accused and by discounting the Hundis of firms SKTrading Co.
Maxwell Electronics and Electricals and M/s Electronics Wound
Components Co. which are not reputed firms like that of Polar,
Khaitan, Usha and Cool Home etc. He has also accepted the forged
personal guarantee having purported signatures of Harish Kumar. In
view of above discussion there is no merit of Ld. Defence Counsel.
98 According to Section 10 of Indian evidence
CC No. 17/10 52/70
Act "where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an
actionable wrong, anything said, done, or written by anyone of such
persons in reference to that common intention, after the time when
such intention was first entertained by anyone of them, is relevant
fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as
well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for
the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
99 Conspiracy consists in a combination or
agreement between two or more person to do an unlawful act or to
do a lawful act by unlawful means. A conspiracy is an inference
drawn from the circumstances. There cannot always be much
direct evidence about it. Conspiracy can be inferred even from the
circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference
of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
offence. Since Conspiracy is often hatched up in utmost secrecy, it
is most impossible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. It has to
be inferred from the acts, statements and conduct of parties to the
conspiracy. Thus, if it is proved that the accused pursued, by their
acts, the same object often by the same means, one performing one
part of the act and the other another part of the same act so as to
complete it with a view to attainment of the object which they were
pursuing, the court is at liberty to draw the inference that they
conspired together to effect that object. Conspiracy has to be
treated as a continuing offence and whosoever is a party to the
conspiracy, during the period for which he is charged, is liable
under this section.
CC No. 17/10 53/70
100 It is not an ingredient of the offence under
this section that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal
act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. The
entire agreement must be viewed as a whole and it has to be
ascertain as to what in fact the conspirators intended to do or the
object they want to achieve. It is not necessary that each member
of conspiracy must know each other or all the details of the
conspiracy. It is also not necessary that every conspirator must have
taken place in each and every act done in pursuance of a conspiracy.
101 Though to establish the charge of conspiracy
there must be agreement, there need not be proof of direct meeting
or combination , nor need the parties be brought into each
other's presence; the agreement may be inferred from the
circumstances raising presumption of a common concerted plan
to carry out the unlawful design. Conspiracy need not be
established by proof which actually brings the party together;
but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
So again it is not necessary that all should have joined in the scheme
from the first point; those who come in at a later stage are equally
guilty.
CC No. 17/10 54/70
102 Conspiracy hatched in secrecy and executed in
darkness. In a case of conspiracy, it is not expected from the
prosecution that it will produce evidence to show that conspirators
executed agreement to commit crime before the witnesses to prove
the existence of conspiracy. Conspirators take all precautions to
keep their plan secret hence prosecution cannot produce direct
evidence to prove agreement to commit conspiracy.
103 In Kher Singh Vs State AIR 1988 SC 1883 it
is observed as follows:
" Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and
it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The
prosecution will often rely on th evidence of acts of various
parties to infer that they were done in reference to their
common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely
upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be
undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial.
But the Court must require whether the two persons are
independently pursuing the same end or they have come
together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does
not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however,
essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of
physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement
however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two
persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual
words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of
thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.
Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other
material."
104 In a case of criminal conspiracy any evidence
available against any of the accused is admissible against all the
CC No. 17/10 55/70
accused. Once a conspiracy is proved among the accused, act of one
conspirator become act of all other conspirators also. In this regard
Ld. SPP placed reliance on Shiv Narain Laxmi Narain Joshi Vs State
of Maharashtra, (1980 ) 2 Supreme Court Cases 465 has held as
follows:
" Penal Code, 1860 Section 120B - Since it is
impossible to adduce direct evidence of conspiracy, the
offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn
from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators
in pursuance of a common design Once such a conspiracy is
proved, act of one conspirator becomes act of the other A
coconspirator, who joins subsequently and commits overt acts
in furtherance of the conspiracy, held is also liable Evidence
Act, 1987 Section 10."
105 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin
Basheeruddin & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 Supreme Court
Cases 596 has held as follows:
"Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime but on
the basis of it a conspirator can also be held liable for the crimes
committed by conspirators in furtherance of the objectives of the
conspiracy Conspiracy can be established on the basis
circumstances evidence As regards admissibility of evidence
strict standards are not necessary inasmuch as any
declaration made by a conspirator in furtherance of and
during pendency of a conspiracy though hearsay, is admissible
against each coconspirator On facts held, Supreme Court's
interference with concurrent finding that criminal conspiracy
proved and on the basis offence of murder also made out not
CC No. 17/10 56/70
called for."
106 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naryan Popli
Vs. CBI AIR 2003, SC 2748 has held as follows:
"The essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case
where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by
itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is
necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a
situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an
agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to
commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in
Section 120B read with the proviso to sub Section (2) of Section
120A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between
the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to
bring about a conviction under Section 120B and the proof of
any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not
be necessary."
107 Hon'ble Supreme Court in P K Narayan Vs.
State of Kerala, All India Criminal Law Reporter 1994 (3) 785, has
held as follows:
"Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B Evidence Act,
1872, Section 3 - Criminal Conspiracy Essence of Criminal
conspiracy - It is an agreement to do an illegal act - Agreement
can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence or by both - Complicity of the accused -
Circumstances proved before, during and after the
occurrence required to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused But if the circumstances are
compatible with the innocence of the accused persons then it
CC No. 17/10 57/70
could not be held that the prosecution had successfully
established its case."
108 Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Swamirathnam,
Appellant Vs. State of Madras, Respondent, (s) AIR 1957 S.C. 340
in this regard has held as follows:
"If a specific instance of cheating was proved beyond doubt against any of the accused that would furnish the best corroboration of the offence of conspiracy because conspiracy was the root and the specific instances were the fruit."
109 Agreement to do an illegal act can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence is to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused in the criminal conspiracy. In this case meeting of mind between the accused can be inferred from the above discussed circumstances raising presumption of a common concerted plan to carry out the unlawful design to commit the criminal conspiracy. 110 It is argued on behalf of accused K G Sharma that several bank officers including K L Chandna had dealt with the processing of loan proposal and sanctioning of loan and thereafter enhancement of term loan but they have not been cited as an accused. It is argued CC No. 17/10 58/70 that in these circumstances investigation has not been carried out fairly. It may not necessary that all the officers who had dealt with loan proposal and sanctioning of loan may be having dishonest intention so as to prosecute them as an accused in this case. There is always a difference between negligence and criminality. Every negligent act may not be a criminal act.
111 Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is evidence available on the record against the accused. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest judgment titled Zindar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2009 III AD (S C ) 7 held as follows:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860 Secs. 376 and 417 - Immediate disclosure of rape by the prosecutrix - Version of prosecutrix unchallenged - Admission by the accused in village panchayat - Medical evidence also another proof - Accused behind bar for five years - SC held - Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is clinching evidence available to the Prosecution."
112 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 382 has held that that defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of prosecution case. 113 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of MP Vs CC No. 17/10 59/70 Man Singh ( 2007) 2 SCC 390 in this regard has held as follows:
"Criminal Trial Investigation Deficiencies in investigation Effect Held, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version which is authentic, credible and cogent Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 S.157."
114 In Karnail Singh Vs. State of MP 1995 SCC 977it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of an erring Investigating Officer.
115 Considering the case from all the angles there is no merit in this argument of Ld. Defence counsel.
Ld. Defence Counsel argued that neither wrongful loss has been caused to the bank nor wrongful gain was obtained by accused K G Sharma because bank has filed a civil suit in the DRT which was compromised and accused K G Sharma had settled the case and paid Rs.25 lac to the bank. It is correct that accused K G Sharma had settled the civil suit filed by PNB in sum of Rs.25 lac and paid the same. But because of it, it cannot be held that no wrongful loss has been caused to the bank and no wrongful gain was CC No. 17/10 60/70 obtained by the accused. Bank has filed a civil suit no.3250 of 1991 against M/s R K Udyog and others for recovery of Rs.32,63,875.00 and the matter has been settled at Rs.25 lacs. From the above circumstances it is clear that suit of Rs.32,63,875/ was settled by the bank at a sum of Rs.25 lac. It is also clear that suit was filed in the year 1991 for the recovery of Rs.32,63,875.00 and it was settled on 25.9.2002 in sum of Rs.25 lac. Thus, bank has also waived interest pendentilite i.e. from the date of filing of suit in the year 1991 till the settlement in the year 2002. In these circumstances it is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that bank had suffered wrongful loss and accused K G Sharma had obtained wrongful gain in this transaction. 116 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that bank itself had filed civil suit which proves that no forgery or cheating was ever committed against bank. Civil as well as criminal remedies can be taken simultaneously. Merely because bank has also filed a civil suit for the recovery of amount in dispute does not mean that no criminal offence was committed. There is no merit in this argument. 117 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that where two views are possible view favorable to accused is to be taken. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a latest authority Dr. Subramanium Swami Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh, JT 2012 a(2) SC 203, in this regard, in para no.45 CC No. 17/10 61/70 has held as follows:
"Today, corruption in our court not only posses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian Democracy and the Rule of Law. The Magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes developments and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fasion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to one which seeks to perpetuate it."
ROLE OF ACCUSED RAMAN CHADHA ACCORDING TO PROSECUTION AND EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM 118 Sh. Raman Chadha had opened a current account number 897 on 26.09.88 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave New Delhi in the name of M/s Raja Sons as its proprietor, as per account opening form D2, Ex pw2/1. According to opinion Ex PW13/K of handwriting expert PW13 Sh. M L Sharma accused CC No. 17/10 62/70 Raman Chadha has signed account opening form at points Q1, Q 1 A and Q1B. Accused Raman Chadha had accepted two Hundies Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/3 on behalf of M/s Raja Sons signing at point Q2 and Q7 respectively. According to the report of Handwriting Expert PW13 M L Sharma Ex PW13/K, signatures on Q2 and Q7 are of accused Raman Chadha. Bill ExPW1/2 and Ex PW13/B have been annexed with Hundi Ex PW1/1. Both these bills bear the signatures of accused Raman Chadha at point Q4, Q5 and Q6 on behlaf of M/s Raja Sons as its proprietor. According to the report of Handwriting Expert PW13 M L Sharma Ex PW13/K, signatures on Q4, Q5 and and Q6 are of accused Raman Chadha. 119 Bills ExPW13/C and Ex PW13/D have been annexed with Hundi Ex PW1/3. Both these bills bear the signatures at point Q8, and Q9, however Handwriting Expert has not given any opinion with regard to the writing at points Q8 and Q9.
120 Hundies Ex PW1/1 (D2) and Ex PW1/3 (D5) were drawn in favour of M/s Raja Sons by Sh. K.G.Sharma mentioning to pay to New Bank of India Rani Bagh New Delhi, the amount mentioned therein for the value of the goods supplied within 45 days and Raman Chadha accepted by writing the words "Accepted" and by signing at point Q2 and Q7 for which handwriting expert has fixed the authorship of Sh. Raman Chadha. PW2 Sh. Ashok Dargan has CC No. 17/10 63/70 also proved that these hundies were received in his bank for collection but returned to New Bank of India Rani Bagh branch New Delhi as the same could not be realised. Non realisation and return of hundies has also been proved by bill collection register page 46 ExPW2/2.
121 PW10 Umesh Kumar has deposed that he is the proprietor of firm M/sRaja Sons situated at 1767/68, Shop No.11, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi which remained upto 1987. He has further deposed that they had a shop under the name and style of M/sSona Super Insulation at premises no.1853. He has further deposed that he had no account in the name of M/s Raja Sons in the bank at premises no.1853 Bhagirath Place. He had never accepted Hundi of M/s Raja Sons, Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/2 at points Q2 and Q7 do not bear his signatures.
122 In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raman Chadha this witness has deposed that firm M/s Raja Sons was working at 1767/68, Shop No.11, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk. He has further deposed that more than 100 or 200 shops are in property bearing No.1853 and 1767/68. He did not know all those shopkeepers. Relevant portion of his cross examination in this regard, is as under:
"There are more than one hundered or two CC No. 17/10 64/70 hundred shops at proper;ty No.1853 and 1767/68. ido not know all those shopkeepers. It is incorrect to suggest that I was threatened by CBI officer to make statement against M/ R K Udhyog or they will arrest me. I did not get my firm registered with the trademark Authorities or authorities dealing with patent and designs. it is incorrect to suggest tht I have deposed falsely under pressure from CBI."
123 It is argued on behalf of accused Raman Chadha that he is running his business under the name & style of M/s Raja Sons and opened C C account no.897 in OBC Vishal Enclave, New Delhi, as its proprietor. He has accepted the Hundies Ex PW1/1 and Ex PW1/3. In the course of his business both these hundies were returned unpaid. These are the business transactions in the regular course of business. On account of returning of Hundies unrealized at the most civil suit for recovery of the amount can be filed against him. He cannot be prosecuted for any criminal offence on account of unrealisation of Hundies in question.
124 PW2 Ashok Dargan, Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce bank deposed that during the period 1984 to march1992 he was posted as officer at Oriental Bank of Commerce,Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. He authorised the opening of C C account No.897 in the name of M/s Raja Sons by its proprietor Raman Chadha on the CC No. 17/10 65/70 introduction of Kezriwal who was having CC accont no. 30. In his cross examination with regard to opening of this account he has deposed as follows:
"I was not knowing Mr. Raman Chadha personally. When I allowed oepning of account in the name of M/s Raja Sons, I did not find any irregularity. I did not find any irregularity subsequently. The Hundies are recorded in our Register. The original hundies were not shown to me when my examination in chief was recorded and only photostat copies are on the record. it is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely or that I have deposed under pressure of CBI."
125 PW5 Sh. B K Bakshi has proved that specimen signatures/writing of accused Raman Chadha S32 to S73 ExPW5/C1 to Ex PW5/C19 (D106) on 19 sheets were taken in his presence which he had given voluntarily. Relevant portion of his statement, in this regard, is as under
:"On the same day i.e. 13.5.94 the investigating officer also obtained specimen writing of accused Raman Chadha in my presence which he gave voluntarily on 19 sheets Ex PW5/C1 to Ex PW5/C19 and all these sheets bear my signatures at point A."
126 From the above discussion it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that IO of this case had taken specimen handwriting S32 to CC No. 17/10 66/70 S73 ExPW5/C1 to Ex PW5/C19 (D106) on 19 sheets of accused Raman Chadha. From the report of Handwriting Expert ExPW13/K it is also proved beyond reasonable doubts that signatures at point Q1, Q1A and 1B on the account opening form of C C Account No. 897 in the name of M/s Raja Sons was opened by accused Raman Chadha as its proprietor which was allowed to open by PW2 Ashok Dargan, the then Officer working in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vishal Enclave, New Delhi. It is also proved from the report of Handwriting Expert Ex PW13/K that signatures at point Q 2 on Hundi Ex PW1/1 qua the acceptance of it on behalf of M/s Raja Sons is of accused Raman Chadha. Similarly It is also proved from the report of Handwriting Expert Ex PW13/K that signatures at point Q 7 on Hundi Ex PW1/3 qua the acceptance of it on behalf of M/s Raja Sons is of accused Raman Chadha.
127 Accused Raman Chadha in his statement U/s 313 Cr PC has deposed that he is innocent. He was running his part time business under the name and style of M/s Raja Sons and he has not committed any offence. He was operating bank account on behalf of M/s Raja Sons and had accepted the Hundies on behalf of M/s Raja Sons and having his shop situated at premises No.1853 Bhagirath Place, Delhi. Relevant Portion of his statement U/s 313 Cr PC is as under:
CC No. 17/10 67/70
"Q21: This is in evidence of PW10, Sh. Umesh Kumar against you that his firm M/s Raja Sons, 1767/68, Shop No. 11, Bhagirathi Palace, Chandni Chowck, Delhi existed upto 1987 and that he had a shop under the name and style of M/s Sona Super Insulation at premises 1853, Bhagirathi Palace, Delhi. What you have to say?
A. It is a matter of record. However, my shop was also situated in the same building. Q22: This is further in evidence of aforesaid witness against you that he had no account under the name of Raja Sons at premises 1853, Bhagirathi Palace, Delhi. What you have to say.
A. I have no knowledge. However, I was operating my bank account on behalf of M/s Raja Sons.
Q23: This is further in evidence of aforesaid witness against you that he never accepted the hundis of Raja Sons Ex.PW1/1 and PW1/2 and signatures at Q2 and Q5 are not his signatures. What you have to say?
A. It is a matter of record. The Hundis were accepted by me on behalf of M/s Raja Sons.
Q24: This is further in evidence of PW13, Sh. M. L. Sharma, DGEQD, Shimla, hand writing expert against you that contents of the documents were received from SP, CBI, SCB, New Delhi in the office of GEQD, Shimla for opinion. What you have to say?
A. It is a matter of record.Q36. Do you want to say anything else?
Ans: I am innocent. I was running my part time business under the name and style of M/s Raja Sons and I have not committed any offence."
128 Prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that CC No. 17/10 68/70 accused Raman Chadha has obtained any financial or other benefit from his co accused K G Sharma, in this transaction. Prosecution has also failed to prove any role of accused Raman Chadha in forging of signatures on the Hundis in question and for obtaining the loan from erstwhile New Bank of India.
129 In these facts and circumstances returning of Hundies unrealized give rise to a cause of action of filing of a civil suit for recovery of the amount in question. No criminal offence is made out.
130 In view of above discussion this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused K G Sharma for the commission of offence U/s 120B, r/w 420, 467,471 r/w 467 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of P C Act, 1947.
131 Prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused K G Sharma for the substantive offence punishable U/s 420, 467 and 471 r/w 467 IPC. 132 Therefore I hold him guilty accordingly.
133 As discussed above, prosecution has failed to CC No. 17/10 69/70 prove that accused Raman Chadha has committed any criminal offence , therefore, he is acquitted of the charges framed against him.
134 Ordered accordingly.
Announced in open court ( V K MAHESHWARI ) Dt. 30.4.2012 SPECIAL JUDGE: DELH CC No. 17/10 70/70 IN THE COURT OF SH. V K MAHESHWARI :SPECIAL JUDGE; TIS HAZARI: DELHI Complaint Case No.17/10 CBI Vs. M/s R K Udyog & Ors ORDER ON SENTENCE: Vide my detailed judgment dated 30.4.2012 I hold
accused K G Sharma guilty for the commission of offence U/s 120 B, r/w 420, 467,471 r/w 467 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of P C Act, 1947 and for the substantive offence punishable U/s 420, 467 and 471 r/w 467 IPC,since prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against him.
Arguments on sentence heard. It is argued on behalf of convict that he is not a previous convict; he is 61 years of age ; he has three daughters and one daughter is of marriageable age . There is none to look after his family. His wife is suffering from arthritis . He is a renewed scholar and a social scientist; he is qualified CC No. 17/10 71/70 Engineer, he has suffered heavy losses in business because of politics of banking institution. He is author of 42 books which have been widely read. He has already paid Rs.25 lacs to the bank as settlement in the civil suit . He is a scholastic person engaged in the reformation of society . He has faced protected trial for about 20 years and suffered mental and physical agony hence, lenient view may be taken against him.
It is argued by Ld SPP for CBI that keeping in view the deterrent theory of punishment a strict view may be taken against him . Bank had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,63,875/ in the year 1991against the convict and his firm which was settled on 25.9.2002 in sum of Rs.25 lacs, thus bank has certainly suffered heavy loss on account of interest. Convict has committed serious economic offence, no leniency be shown . He be awarded maximum imprisonment as per law and heavy find be also imposed.
CC No. 17/10 72/70
I have carefully considered all the arguments raised before me and have gone through the record. Accused is 61 years old . He is not a previous convict. He has settled the civil suit for recovery instituted by the bank and paid Rs.25 lacs to the bank. From the circumstances it is also proved that bank has certainly suffered financial loss. After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, and arguments raised in the Court, I consider it proper to award two years RI along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/ ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) I D three months S I U/s 120B, r/w 420, 467,471 r/w 467 IPC and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1) (d) of P C Act, 1947 to convict K G Sharma.
He is also awarded three years RI along with a fine of Rs. 50,000/ (Rs. fifty thousand only), I D three months S I for the substantive offence punishable U/s 420 IPC.
He is further awarded three years RI along with a fine of 50,000/ (Rs. fifty thousand only), I D three months S I for the CC No. 17/10 73/70 substantive offence punishable U/s 467 IPC.
He is further awarded three years RI along with a fine of 50,000/ (Rs. fifty thousand only), I D three months S I for the substantive offence punishable U/s 471 r/w Section 467 IPC.
All the sentences will run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr P C is given to accused. Ordered accordingly.
A copy of judgment and this order on sentence be given to accused free of costs.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (V K
MAHESHWARI)
TODAY ON 9.5.2012 SPECIAL JUDGE:
DELHI
CC No. 17/10 74/70